Vaughan v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Vaughan v. State

1918 OK CR 54, 172 P. 975, 14 Okla. Crim. 475, 1918 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 154

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedMay 25, 1918

DocketNo. 2941.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 1918 OK CR 54 (Vaughan v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Vaughan v. State, 1918 OK CR 54, 172 P. 975, 14 Okla. Crim. 475, 1918 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 154 (Okla. Ct. App. 1918).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

But one question is presented by counsel for plaintiff in error as a reason for the reversal of this judgment, to wit, that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the same. The entire evidence is from witnesses who were produced by the state. The defendant did not testify, nor did he offer any witnesses in his behalf.

In substance, the state’s witnesses testified that in the month of February, 1916, they had collected at the residence of Robert Weathers, the son-in-law of plaintiff in error, Vaughan, in Atoka county, Okla.; that Weathers was in possession of a barrel of Choctaw beer, which was intoxicating, and that several parties drank three or four gallons of this beer on that occasion. All of the parties testified that Vaughan was given a sum of money, either $1 or $2, for the amount of beer drunk on that occasion, and that Weathers drew the same from the keg. The parties testified that they did not know who owned the beer; that nobody claimed it; but the evidence showed that both Weathers and Vaughan, who were jointly charged with making the sale, were jn active control of this beer, and together were peddling same. There is no disputing the fact that there-was a sale of intoxicating liquor, called Choctaw beer, on that occasion, and that the defendant, Vaughan, was. actively participating in such sale together with his son-in-law, Weathers. This evi *477 dence stands undisputed and undenied, and is amply sufficient to sustain this verdict and judgment of conviction.

Under' the repeated holdings of this court, the evidence will not be held to be insufficient to support a judgment of conviction, where there is any reliable evidence from which the jury might have reasonably concluded that the defendant was guilty. The court is not at liberty to substitute its judgment on questions of fact for that of juries in this state.

The judgment is affirmed..

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

But one question is presented by counsel for plaintiff in error as a reason for the reversal of this judgment, to wit, that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the same. The entire evidence is from witnesses who were produced by the state. The defendant did not testify, nor did he offer any witnesses in his behalf.

In substance, the state’s witnesses testified that in the month of February, 1916, they had collected at the residence of Robert Weathers, the son-in-law of plaintiff in error, Vaughan, in Atoka county, Okla.; that Weathers was in possession of a barrel of Choctaw beer, which was intoxicating, and that several parties drank three or four gallons of this beer on that occasion. All of the parties testified that Vaughan was given a sum of money, either $1 or $2, for the amount of beer drunk on that occasion, and that Weathers drew the same from the keg. The parties testified that they did not know who owned the beer; that nobody claimed it; but the evidence showed that both Weathers and Vaughan, who were jointly charged with making the sale, were jn active control of this beer, and together were peddling same. There is no disputing the fact that there-was a sale of intoxicating liquor, called Choctaw beer, on that occasion, and that the defendant, Vaughan, was. actively participating in such sale together with his son-in-law, Weathers. This evi *477 dence stands undisputed and undenied, and is amply sufficient to sustain this verdict and judgment of conviction.

Under' the repeated holdings of this court, the evidence will not be held to be insufficient to support a judgment of conviction, where there is any reliable evidence from which the jury might have reasonably concluded that the defendant was guilty. The court is not at liberty to substitute its judgment on questions of fact for that of juries in this state.

The judgment is affirmed..

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1918 OK CR 54, 172 P. 975, 14 Okla. Crim. 475, 1918 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 154, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vaughan-v-state-oklacrimapp-1918.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack